Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Looking for experienced people here.

Anyone run the 289 Lemans cam (#C7FE-6250-A) before?
What was it like?
Anyone run it in an Auto?

I have heard that this cam, despite it's somewhat aggressive seeming profile on paper, has a very good low end, decent idle and manors you'd expect from a hot OEM cam.

I will have 3.55 gears and a 2400 stall. I could go lower on the gears. Maybe even 3.89 if necessary. Or I could just run the 289 HiPo cam. I'm trying to decide.

I do not want to hear, "you should run this generic Comp grind or call xx and get a custom grind," please. I just want to hear from people who have ran this cam. It is between those two cams. Period. I am not considering other grinds. Call it nostalgia.

Here's the rest of what my engine will have:

289 C-Code Shortblock
1968 302 J-Code heads with about a 51-ish cc chamber and ported exhaust
Scorpion Roller Rockers
Edelbrock Performer RPM Manifold
Edelbrock 600cfm carb
TRI-Y headers
Shelby GT350 side exit style exhaust in 2.5"
Boss 302 Windage Tray
Compression should be about 9.5:1

I plan to have it dyno tuned.

I'm going for as much HP as possible but with a very nostalgic look, sound and feel. If that costs me a little HP and some street manors it's worth it to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,138 Posts
Problem is, it would never work with those black wheels :poke:

Have you worked out your compression ratio using the 302 heads on a 289? That profile might prefer a certain compression range. I don't see it reaching 9.5:1
EDIT: just read up on the J codes. Interesting heads. Looks like 9.5:1 is it!

EDIT again: Read this thread. Especially the last post
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/336411-c7fe-6250-camshaft.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,785 Posts
Looking for experienced people here.

Anyone run the 289 Lemans cam (#C7FE-6250-A) before?
What was it like?
Anyone run it in an Auto?

I have heard that this cam, despite it's somewhat aggressive seeming profile on paper, has a very good low end, decent idle and manors you'd expect from a hot OEM cam.

I will have 3.55 gears and a 2400 stall. I could go lower on the gears. Maybe even 3.89 if necessary. Or I could just run the 289 HiPo cam. I'm trying to decide.

I do not want to hear, "you should run this generic Comp grind or call xx and get a custom grind," please. I just want to hear from people who have ran this cam. It is between those two cams. Period. I am not considering other grinds. Call it nostalgia.

Here's the rest of what my engine will have:

289 C-Code Shortblock
1968 302 J-Code heads with about a 51-ish cc chamber and ported exhaust
Scorpion Roller Rockers
Edelbrock Performer RPM Manifold
Edelbrock 600cfm carb
TRI-Y headers
Shelby GT350 side exit style exhaust in 2.5"
Boss 302 Windage Tray
Compression should be about 9.5:1

I plan to have it dyno tuned.

I'm going for as much HP as possible but with a very nostalgic look, sound and feel. If that costs me a little HP and some street manors it's worth it to me.
IIRR, it had a 310 to 320 duration & 510 lift......the lift is fine (could even be little higher with hydraulics) but the duration especially with an auto on the street would be a little tough in terms of drivability.....even as a weekend cruiser.....IMHO would prefer a duration under 300, this would give a nice lope but still maintain drivability.

IMHO, there is an issue running cams this old......if its a trailer queen- no big deal, but unless you have that camshaft really inspected, fractures may well exist in a cam billet that old....and really, any mfg that advertises that "lift & Duration" to be like or similar to X, it is hype....there is a difference not only between actual and advertised lift/duration but the lobe - ramps themselves...which unless you have an actual Lemans cam or the grind specs, you just have another cam that has a lift/duration of X..so from a nostalgia aspect, you still won't have a "lemans cam" in most cases.

Given the criticality of the component- IMHO, when it comes to making an engine breathe, there are so many variable including elevation, humidity, fuel blends/available octane, it makes sense to speak directly to a cam mfg to tell them exactly what you are looking for....which IMHO makes the different between and engine that runs well, to one that just seems to run a little bit better, smoother and gets better mileage than expected....Especially the old family run cam companies......like Isky, Crower, Herbert....they will know exactly what cam you are wanting, the specific dynamics (including sound) that you want, and chances are, they have an existing non-advertised grind in their "files" that will fit your profile and give you exactly what you want.

In the old days (I'm showing my age), this is how everyone bought a cam..or had one re-ground, then in the late 70's early 80's the off the shelf brands started......convenient, yes, quality was ok but by the time the late 90's rolled around, the QA was crap for much of the off the shelf cam industry....but that's another story. The point is, what today is known as "Custom Cam" is really just a purchase of the way it use to be, and all of the family owned cam shops still operate this way....
they can even vary the grind ever so slightly to address issues that were possibly known with that grind, just to make it a better engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I am going with a reproduction from Howard Cams whether I go with the HiPo cam or the Lemans cam. Here they are:

http://www.summitracing.com/search/Brand/Howards-Cams/Product-Line/Howards-Cams-Max-Factory-Camshafts/Cam-Style/Mechanical-flat-tappet/Engine-Size/4-7L-289/?Ns=Rank|Asc&autoview=SKU

Do you not trust these to be exact replicas?

What happens when you run too big a cam without high enough stall speed? Sluggishness? Worse?

I could always bump up my stall speed, although I'd prefer not to since I already have the 2400 converter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
I am dating myself, but here goes. Back in the sixties when Ford had the muscle car program, I bought one of these cams to put on my 289 C code 65 fastback. Luckily I had some help from a couple Ford freaks who knew small block engines. Long story short, the stock 2 barrel 289 does not have enough piston to valve clearance for this cam. Measurement came out to .085 clearance, you need .100 minimum. I don't know if those J heads will make a difference, but the flat top pistons on my C code needed to be notched.
Once installed the car ran well on the street, idled at 650, and seemed to peak over 6,400 which is as high as I would take it with stock rods. With that combo, some seven inch cheater slicks, along with a Cobra intake, 600 Holley, and Hooker long tube headers, I ran consistent 13.2's in the quarter, with a best of 12.87, (open headers) with t-10 trans, and 3.89 gears. But like others have said, cam tech has come a long way since then.....
Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
I assumed the C-Code would have as much or more PTV clearance as a K-Code due to the small dish. I never saw the two pistons side by side before though. There were two C-Code pistons used in '65. Early C4AE-6110-L with no reliefs and later C5OE-6110-J with reliefs. I'm not sure which I have. I was definitely going to check PTV clearance though.

Plan B is to run a 5.0L shortblock if I can find a good one. They have a lot more PTV clearance with their valve reliefs. This will bump my compression up to about 10.2:1.

I would prefer not to do this because ultimately I want to run a 331 with AFR heads. I'm just messing around with my 289 for the time being. I guess I could run the regular HiPo cam or a modernized version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
When I was in high school one of the old guys, probably my age now, had a 289 HIPO that he switched the cam to a hotter ford cam. I think I remember him saying it was a Lemans cam. He had a four speed so I can't answer you auto question. I rode in the car many times with the HiPo cam and the new one and the Lemans cam had a lot more top end than the HiPo cam. He is the one who taught me how to adjust valves because he was always checking them. He ran the car at a track in Michigan but I never went with him. My dad didn't like him much. I guess he is the one that got me hooked on mustangs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,785 Posts
I am going with a reproduction from Howard Cams whether I go with the HiPo cam or the Lemans cam. Here they are:

http://www.summitracing.com/search/Brand/Howards-Cams/Product-Line/Howards-Cams-Max-Factory-Camshafts/Cam-Style/Mechanical-flat-tappet/Engine-Size/4-7L-289/?Ns=Rank|Asc&autoview=SKU

Do you not trust these to be exact replicas?

What happens when you run too big a cam without high enough stall speed? Sluggishness? Worse?

I could always bump up my stall speed, although I'd prefer not to since I already have the 2400 converter.
Howard (IIRR) is still a family owned business, so yes, I would trust their quality, but I would still call then to discuss your specific needs and their recommendations. With regards to running too big of a cam, some of the issues are elevated idle speed (typically 1000+ rpm- not an issue for track cars but for street?), vacume loss at low rpm (not enough to run accessories (which may or may not be an issue, but can be addressed with a vacume canister), spark plug load-up (carbon caused by too low rpm engine operation), and with regards to stall speed, just because a tq converter is rated at let's say 2400 rpm, you need to check the specs on where and how that was calculated, tq converter diamter, engine tq, gearing can vary that by as much as + or -500 rpm. Then there is the general drivability issue.....if we say for that you get this cam which has a power band that starts at just under 3,000 rpm, and you have a tq converter with a stall speed of 2400....for track conditions, no sweat, for street, its like having to rev your engine halway up the rpm band befor you can drive off from a stoplight..........chirping tires are a possibility too...although all this is fun, if the speed limit is 25 mph, you will feel like you are in a vertical martini shaker as you try to gently in traffic lets say, just try to move forward slowly.......an attention getter- yes.....including the cops too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I found some piston pics. It does indeed appear that the K-Code pistons have slightly deep valve reliefs. I was going to measure anyway but I'm really hoping I do not have the silly early C-Code pistons with no valve reliefs. That will ruin my day.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
I hate to tell you this, but my C code had the factory reliefs, and it wasn't enough. I guess that cam was meant for the HiPo engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I may have to pull out my dremel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
are you wanting an old cam for nostalgic reasons or has there really been no improvement with cam designs in 40 years?
Well you've heard all the testimonials about the Lemans cam. Old doesn't mean bad. What I've noticed about modern cams is they all have way too much lift. Anything with under .500 lift is so mild duration wise that they aren't even as good as the HiPo cam.

So let's see, a 350-400hp cam that idles at 650, pulls to 7000rpms and has under .550" lift (it's actually going to be about .508-.510 with the lash)? Maybe they were onto something 40 years ago.

I also think it's hilarious that modern cam companies will have the same cam specs for a Ford and a Chevy and claim they will do the same things. Have you ever compared a Chevy head to a Ford head? Their engineers had very different philosophies about cam timing FOR A REASON.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
a 289 with a lemans cam and stock heads will produce 400 hp and idle at 650?

wow.

what's the duration at .050" on the intake and exhaust lobe of that cam?

i'm looking right now at a solid flat tappet lobe in the Comp catalog that provides 272 degrees duration at .050" with .499" valve lift using a 1.6 rocker. that's intense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
a 289 with a lemans cam and stock heads will produce 400 hp and idle at 650?
I don't recall saying stock heads. Who has stock heads?

I do know that a HiPo cam with stock heads will produce about 350hp and have a good idle. Carol Shelby proved that.

Lemans cam:
Intake Duration at 050 inch Lift: 251
Exhaust Duration at 050 inch Lift: 252

Is this the cam you mean?
http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/cam-specs/Details.aspx?csid=819&sb=2

Looks more mild than the Lemans cam.

Anyway, I see what you're trying to do here. I'm a big idiot for wanting to run these cams. I get it. Thanks for your input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
350-400 hp, not hardly. Especially with all the factory exhaust & intake restrictions. Besides, even the Shelby K codes were only able to muster 306 hp ~310 hp with upgraded intake manifold, carb and a few other tweeks. If you want those kinda numbers from a 289 (350-400), you will definitely have to do upgrades on the heads (or go aftermarket) and also improve the cam, intake and exhaust. I had a Lemans cam but was talked out of it by Cobramotive techs and put onto a more modern solid flat tappet cam that is more user friendly and will take full advantage of the cnc work done on my K code heads and full exhaust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
GT350R had 350hp. It's not exactly easy to dig up exact specs on those but my understanding is they had stock heads. If I'm wrong let me know.

Besides, who has stock heads?

I'm also not going for 350-400hp. Maybe 300-330. And then of course there's the altitude. I'll be lucky to make 280 at the crank.

My eventual goal is to build a 331 with all the new tech you can think of. Maybe next summer. For this summer I wanted to do an experiment on my 289 and follow the path of original 60's hot rodders- primarily Carol Shelby- and see what would happen. Obviously that's an unpopular idea but I'm almost obsessed with it now. If I don't run the Lemans cam I'm running the HiPo cam. The original one. Not the "here's what our Chevy guy engineers thought would be better than the original" Comp version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
I don't recall saying stock heads. Who has stock heads?

I do know that a HiPo cam with stock heads will produce about 350hp and have a good idle. Carol Shelby proved that.

Lemans cam:
Intake Duration at 050 inch Lift: 251
Exhaust Duration at 050 inch Lift: 252

Anyway, I see what you're trying to do here. I'm a big idiot for wanting to run these cams. I get it. Thanks for your input.

i didn't say that at all. i didn't know what your original rationale was and wasn't sure you were aware of all the options in lobes available to you.

sorry you've come to such a quick conclusion about me.

there are lobes available that have that duration with the lift you want with less advertised duration which i would think would result in less overlap and better idle. but if a cam with 94 degrees overlap in a 289 idles at 650 rpm then you're probably on to something.

in general i would hope in product improvement over 40 years. maybe not.

in my opinion 350hp with stock heads on a 289 is still beyond impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
I wanted to do an experiment on my 289 and follow the path of original 60's hot rodders- primarily Carol Shelby- and see what would happen.
now you have me confused. just a few posts ago you mentioned there were no cams with low lift and a healthy amount of duration. now you say you wanted to follow the path of the original 60's hot rodders.

but apparently i'm a jerk for asking if you wanted to install that cam for nostalgic reasons.

thanks for immediately throwing darts at me.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top